A man stopped his car near a police minibus, cops specialized in traffic control. He got out and started shooting with an assault rifle (AK-47 probably). Minibus driver killed, two other cops in it wounded. The shooter fled on foot and there was a shootout with other cops, he was killed, a passer-by was wounded.

Sad ending to my evening as I was enjoying a Bob Dylan concert elsewhere in Paris.

Condolences to the family of the killed cop.

Daesh has claimed responsibility.

I hope it doesn't derail the presidential election.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Condolences to the family of the officer. Hopefully French nation does get itself together and actually starts dealing with these problems, as opposed to their usual avoidance of required efforts. Only then the casualties will stop.

Sure - honest answer as I see it. First, they must understand and order up what's going on in their country. They vitally need to strengthen the state. Even Paris suburbs (as well as other major cities) have no-go areas where even police prefers not to show up - what's going on there? Closed Muslim and migrant communities - what's happening there (ISIS recruitment, financial transactions)? Long traditions of violent protests, with Molotov cocktails - those need to be understood and dealt with; who and how organizes and stages those? I can't imagine similar things happening in the USA. Large gray market of firearms.

Then - uncontrolled migration with migrants and refugees from all over the place being attracted to generous welfare system - perhaps fix up and tighten that one? Understand who's entering the country. Even as simple as elimination of welfare for new entrants can go long ways. Also - totally open borders with neighboring EU countries, with weak security services and just as generous welfare (Belgium comes to mind). If the Schengen agreement doesn't work in realities of the 21st century - it must be done away with and replaced with something that works. Police and secret services need to get all authority they need in order to be able to do their work efficiently. I know French, as pretty much the rest of Western Europe, are obsessed with all sorts of rights, non-discrimination, privacy things, and the likes; those need to be scaled back in such situation.

As you see - they've got lots to do, and these victims will continue until they get to real work. I am not saying that they are not doing anything, but they are doing 1/10th of what's really needed, and mostly - organize solidarity marches (as if that solves anything). And one more note - by American and Russian counter-terrorism experts the EU isn't seen as an ally in fighting the terror, but rather as a source of the threat. In the US recently there are even suggestions to re-introduce visitor visas with EU countries.

It seems Daesh is really hurting. They claimed responsibility in the name of another guy, a Belgian that wasn't involved. Opportunistic rather than being the head behind the attack.

The perp which I will not name, meanwhile, was a hardcore criminal who spent half his life in prison for various crimes including attempted murder of cops, and surprise surprise, a mere months after getting out of jail, he attacks cops.

He did use Daesh as a justification but I will let you measure his religious credentials.

Similar to many other such attacks.

LAH1 : not one month ago a guy rented a weapon and killed with it in London, that weapon was a car and he rented it in Birmingham.

Firearms trafficking must be tackled for sure, and in France we have no "2nd amendment problem" with that, however at the end of the day firearms are not big and can be disassembled and hidden very easily. An AK-47 found in France did have to cross non Schengen borders to get here.

I have crossed French borders many times on the ground, by air, by ship, by sailing boat, even by parachute once (my club is right at the Belgian border), Schengen and non Schengen borders, thorough controls are very rare, even before Schengen. Of course by airliner your luggage is checked, but by car, that's another story. There was more control when I sailed to Jersey, a guy hopped on the boat and looked around a bit. The border with Italy and Spain are mountainous, on the other hand the border with Belgium is invisible, in fact there are some cities that are crossborder, you cross a city street and you've changed countries.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

I will try to offer my opinion to Planeflyer and his question. It seems that in 2003 that guy stole a car and seriously wounded two policemen during his arrest. He was sentenced to 20 year in jail, during which he attacked a prison guard. He was released after serving 5 years, and profited for his regained freedom to keep on committing crimes.I think it is useless to apply the proposed recipes by most candidates. The only deterrent is the certitude of the punishment, which unfortunately is a long gone concept all over Europe. He got 20 years, add some for the assault in jail, he should have been locked until 2028, no discounts. The legislation and judiciary systems must be amended in that direction, on top of the already existing intelligence activity.

Yet another attack by a lone wolf. Hard to stop, hard to detect those. We, as a society, should have a long hard look at how to create a society with doesn't create people like that. but we also have to recognise that open society comes at a price, these kind of attacks are among the drawbacks, unfortunately. And we need not overreact. In the 70's and 80's there were more terrorist attacks in Europe than now, in the end we did overcame that, so we will this, I am sure of that.

Pampot70 wrote:

I will try to offer my opinion to Planeflyer and his question. It seems that in 2003 that guy stole a car and seriously wounded two policemen during his arrest. He was sentenced to 20 year in jail, during which he attacked a prison guard. He was released after serving 5 years, and profited for his regained freedom to keep on committing crimes.I think it is useless to apply the proposed recipes by most candidates. The only deterrent is the certitude of the punishment, which unfortunately is a long gone concept all over Europe. He got 20 years, add some for the assault in jail, he should have been locked until 2028, no discounts. The legislation and judiciary systems must be amended in that direction, on top of the already existing intelligence activity.

In general, longer sentencing doesn't work, all academic studies point to that, in fact, prison sentence over 5 years is pointless from the view of rehabilitation and deterrence.

In general, longer sentencing doesn't work, all academic studies point to that, in fact, prison sentence over 5 years is pointless from the view of rehabilitation and deterrence.

Some people shouldn't ever be released.

Also; as Pampot70 says, this individual served five years. Clearly he was not rehabilitated in that time, which undermines the argument that five years is the optimum amount of time in order to rehabilitate and deter. Some people are so ideologically driven that rehabilitation is impossible.

In general, longer sentencing doesn't work, all academic studies point to that, in fact, prison sentence over 5 years is pointless from the view of rehabilitation and deterrence.

I agree that rehabilitation works better if the culprit accepts it. However this kind of crime, i.e. terrorist attacks, is very ofter carried out by people in their 20s. A lengthy jail serving, especially when prescribed by the Law, would release them in their 40s and 50s when they are less likely to be part in such attacks.Unfortunately easy non-solutions as banning hijabs, closing some mosques, closing borders or militarizing the terrirory are, exactly not solutions.

In general, longer sentencing doesn't work, all academic studies point to that, in fact, prison sentence over 5 years is pointless from the view of rehabilitation and deterrence.

Some people shouldn't ever be released.

Also; as Pampot70 says, this individual served five years. Clearly he was not rehabilitated in that time, which undermines the argument that five years is the optimum amount of time in order to rehabilitate and deter. Some people are so ideologically driven that rehabilitation is impossible.

The five years has been proven by academic research. Clearly, an individual case is anecdotal evidence at best. The time should be well spent, obviously. Neither you nor me can judge if this was the case.

Pampot70 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In general, longer sentencing doesn't work, all academic studies point to that, in fact, prison sentence over 5 years is pointless from the view of rehabilitation and deterrence.

I agree that rehabilitation works better if the culprit accepts it. However this kind of crime, i.e. terrorist attacks, is very ofter carried out by people in their 20s. A lengthy jail serving, especially when prescribed by the Law, would release them in their 40s and 50s when they are less likely to be part in such attacks.Unfortunately easy non-solutions as banning hijabs, closing some mosques, closing borders or militarizing the terrirory are, exactly not solutions.

Indeed there are no easy solutions for this kind of radicalisation. Terrorist attacks which result in the death of persons carry lengthy sentences anyhow. The trick is to catch them and deradicalize them before they commit such an act.

The trick is to catch them and deradicalize them before they commit such an act.

Serious question..is there any case where this has happened before? To me it seems the only answer is to prevent radicalization or entry in the first place. If they get in and radicalize then you're really almost exclusively dependent on their stupidity and getting caught or your country's own ability to deter or prevent an attack. But I've never really heard of successful deradicalization after someone goes full cray cray. I think once you commit to Koran v2.0 that's it man, you're coo coo for cocoa puffs until the end.

Theses no go zone zones are a fantasy created by your press. any of theses zones seems like a Teletubbies park compared to Birmingham

I wish. But are they also local police's "fantasy" - are they just fantasizing that they shouldn't go there and "provoke the minority members"?

Pampot70 wrote:

A lengthy jail serving, especially when prescribed by the Law, would release them in their 40s and 50s when they are less likely to be part in such attacks.Unfortunately easy non-solutions as banning hijabs, closing some mosques, closing borders or militarizing the terrirory are, exactly not solutions.

Yes, there are no simple and easy solutions. But - establishing border controls (so that each nation knows who and when enters and leaves their country) is a component. Closing mosques with radical imams - another important piece to the puzzle. Banning hijabs - delivers a stronger message that this is how people live here, and please live like that or find yourself some other country. Any of these measures by itself - will give limited results at best, but combined together, with others - will do a lot to reduce the problem.

They may be not too large, but they don't need to be. And there doesn't need to be a lot of those.

For comparison, there has been 33 murders in Chicago since the beginning of April. Almost all shootings. 178 murders since the beginning of the year. It'll take another 5 years of terror attacks before Paris equals the number of the average monthly murders in Chicago. Why isn't the world talking about Chicago?

There are places where police don't go on foot, one cop at a time. They go with two cars, 8 cops. That's your no-go zones. They do go there. The problem is rather that they can't solve the situation, because too many people are complicit.

This has nothing to do with radical Islam though, it's all about drug trafficking. Drug money is paying for everything. Teen boys leave school and spend the day looking out for cops, while older guys sell the stuff. When cops get in, other teens throw stuff at them from the roofs of buildings.

In the last few years this problem has been tackled head on, more and more drug traffickers are caught, younger and younger, but there is always someone to take their place.

One candidate has a proposal I find interesting, it would be a new sentence for some criminals : banning them from getting back to these places where they committed their crimes.

Arms trafficking is fueled by these drug traffickers who want to eliminate the competition.

In some of these ghettos radical Islam thrives, but it's not these fools who are attacking cops daily. Either they're "non-violent", I know difficult to believe but true, just like most wahabis in Saudi Arabia are not out for jihad despite being religious zealots ; or they're potential terrorists, but in that case they don't want to be caught throwing a cinder block at cops, they're hiding, preparing something more nefarious. Note that these last people must not be that numerous or we would have many more terror attacks.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

but we also have to recognise that open society comes at a price, these kind of attacks are among the drawbacks, unfortunately.

Open society or open borders? For example in our neighbour Sweden terrorism was unheard of until they decided to open their borders for massive migration from Islamic world. Of course if you count liberal immigration policy as a part of open society, then you are right. However I believe an open society doesn't requite an open migration policy.

Admittedly at this point simply more restrictive migration policy wouldn't fix the issue anymore, there are way too many poorly integrated Muslims in Europe, and their numbers grow every year simply through high birth rate in those families.

Dutchy wrote:

In the 70's and 80's there were more terrorist attacks in Europe than now, in the end we did overcame that, so we will this, I am sure of that.

Most of them were the kind of terrorism which targeted specific individuals and officials rather than random civilians. Modern Islamic terrorism is much better at creating fear and distrust as anybody can fall its victim.

I often wonder how long it will be until Finland experiences its first terrorist attack, probably it won't be too long anymore. Terrorism is becoming the new norm everywhere where voters are foolish enough to believe that taking massive amounts of migration from very different societies and stuffing them into ugly ghettos is a recipe for successful multicultural society.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr

For comparison, there has been 33 murders in Chicago since the beginning of April. Almost all shootings. 178 murders since the beginning of the year. It'll take another 5 years of terror attacks before Paris equals the number of the average monthly murders in Chicago. Why isn't the world talking about Chicago?

Chicago nonetheless isn't known to be a source of terror threat, despite being a so called "sanctuary city" (a city where local police doesn't check one's immigration status). Unlike some European areas.

There are places where police don't go on foot, one cop at a time. They go with two cars, 8 cops. That's your no-go zones. They do go there. The problem is rather that they can't solve the situation, because too many people are complicit.

It's not that "they can't". It's that your state isn't strong enough inside to effectively deal with such situations. If they police needs more authority to be more efficient, they should get whatever they need. Assaulting a police officer (such as throwing a stone at him) must be regarded as a heavy crime with inevitable consequences (including automatic deportation if the assaulter is a migrant no matter what).

Aesma wrote:

This has nothing to do with radical Islam though, it's all about drug trafficking. Drug money is paying for everything. Teen boys leave school and spend the day looking out for cops, while older guys sell the stuff. When cops get in, other teens throw stuff at them from the roofs of buildings.

It does, and a lot. In the areas with no law enforcement, you can find anything - drug trade, weapons, human trafficking, radical Islam. Often in wondrous mix (such as radical Islam dudes aren't shying away from prostitution profits). And the state needs to effectively deal with all of that.

Aesma wrote:

In the last few years this problem has been tackled head on, more and more drug traffickers are caught, younger and younger, but there is always someone to take their place.

One candidate has a proposal I find interesting, it would be a new sentence for some criminals : banning them from getting back to these places where they committed their crimes.

There isn't easy solution here, and one interesting proposal in itself won't do it. You can solve youth problem with strengthening education system, pushing them into workforce, more aggressive send-out of migrant violators. Consequences must be inevitable.

Most of them were the kind of terrorism which targeted specific individuals and officials rather than random civilians. Modern Islamic terrorism is much better at creating fear and distrust as anybody can fall its victim.

I often wonder how long it will be until Finland experiences its first terrorist attack, probably it won't be too long anymore. Terrorism is becoming the new norm everywhere where voters are foolish enough to believe that taking massive amounts of migration from very different societies and stuffing them into ugly ghettos is a recipe for successful multicultural society.

What can I say? You are walking the party line of European far right perfectly: PVV, Front National, UKIP, AfD etc. And needless to say I don't subscribe to your far right point of views.

What can I say? You are walking the party line of European far right perfectly: PVV, Front National, UKIP, AfD etc. And needless to say I don't subscribe to your far right point of views.

Perhaps, but that's not because I would be far right. I don't subscribe to any political ideology, instead I have my own opinions which I base on research and facts. On the issue of immigration the far right simply happens to be right, on some other issues they may not be.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr

What can I say? You are walking the party line of European far right perfectly: PVV, Front National, UKIP, AfD etc. And needless to say I don't subscribe to your far right point of views.

Perhaps, but that's not because I would be far right. I don't subscribe to any political ideology, instead I have my own opinions which I base on research and facts. On the issue of immigration the far right simply happens to be right, on some other issues they may not be.

What you have shown here, I would say, you don't base your opinions on research and facts. At least not academic research, perhaps on facts and research presented by Russia Today, Fox news, Breitbart, Sputnik and so on. You say you are a history major, so you should know what academic research is and how to judge your sources. And I think it's quite serious that you advocate a strong man as the leader of a country, especially as a history major you should know that if a system of checks and balances isn't in place, these kinds of autocracy will, inevitably will end up as a dictatorship. I can't see how a dictatorship helps to better a society. Democracy is a worse system, but we haven't got anything better and what you propose is far and far worse.

Those far right parties I have mentioned are social nationalist at hard. So on immigration, stop everyone at the border and throw everyone out which are deemed undesirable. On social issues, give the people more, because they are entitled to that. Look up the Robbers Cave Experiment, it might interest you if you like facts and research. It shows how easy it is to create a 'war' between groups of people in society.

I'm going to France this summer- my hotel is on the Champs-Eleysees. I'm looking forward to it and all that France has to offer. i'm also going to use the trip to attend an immersion course as I have to brush up on my French.

What you have shown here, I would say, you don't base your opinions on research and facts. At least not academic research, perhaps on facts and research presented by Russia Today, Fox news, Breitbart, Sputnik and so on. You say you are a history major, so you should know what academic research is and how to judge your sources. And I think it's quite serious that you advocate a strong man as the leader of a country, especially as a history major you should know that if a system of checks and balances isn't in place, these kinds of autocracy will, inevitably will end up as a dictatorship. I can't see how a dictatorship helps to better a society. Democracy is a worse system, but we haven't got anything better and what you propose is far and far worse.

Those far right parties I have mentioned are social nationalist at hard. So on immigration, stop everyone at the border and throw everyone out which are deemed undesirable. On social issues, give the people more, because they are entitled to that. Look up the Robbers Cave Experiment, it might interest you if you like facts and research. It shows how easy it is to create a 'war' between groups of people in society.

OK - but if you have too much checks and balances, to the point that country's leadership isn't capable of taking actions that are urgently required? Even if we take today's European migrant crisis - don't you think that if individual governments and leaders had more authority they would have been able to deal with the situation more efficiently? But instead - they are tied up at national level and the EU level, and saving this EU is more priority to them than lives of their own citizens. Even if someone tries to voice an opinion that this isn't right, he is belong immediately labeled as a "far right populist" or a "dictator". Victor Orban is an example here. I clearly don't find this normal.

What you have shown here, I would say, you don't base your opinions on research and facts. At least not academic research, perhaps on facts and research presented by Russia Today, Fox news, Breitbart, Sputnik and so on. You say you are a history major, so you should know what academic research is and how to judge your sources. And I think it's quite serious that you advocate a strong man as the leader of a country, especially as a history major you should know that if a system of checks and balances isn't in place, these kinds of autocracy will, inevitably will end up as a dictatorship. I can't see how a dictatorship helps to better a society. Democracy is a worse system, but we haven't got anything better and what you propose is far and far worse.

Those far right parties I have mentioned are social nationalist at hard. So on immigration, stop everyone at the border and throw everyone out which are deemed undesirable. On social issues, give the people more, because they are entitled to that. Look up the Robbers Cave Experiment, it might interest you if you like facts and research. It shows how easy it is to create a 'war' between groups of people in society.

OK - but if you have too much checks and balances, to the point that country's leadership isn't capable of taking actions that are urgently required? Even if we take today's European migrant crisis - don't you think that if individual governments and leaders had more authority they would have been able to deal with the situation more efficiently? But instead - they are tied up at national level and the EU level, and saving this EU is more priority to them than lives of their own citizens. Even if someone tries to voice an opinion that this isn't right, he is belong immediately labeled as a "far right populist" or a "dictator". Victor Orban is an example here. I clearly don't find this normal.

I believe that the strong and competent leaders should come out of other nation's institutions, and the political parties must aid voters in their election. Though, this is also prone to failure.

What you have shown here, I would say, you don't base your opinions on research and facts. At least not academic research, perhaps on facts and research presented by Russia Today, Fox news, Breitbart, Sputnik and so on. You say you are a history major, so you should know what academic research is and how to judge your sources. And I think it's quite serious that you advocate a strong man as the leader of a country, especially as a history major you should know that if a system of checks and balances isn't in place, these kinds of autocracy will, inevitably will end up as a dictatorship. I can't see how a dictatorship helps to better a society. Democracy is a worse system, but we haven't got anything better and what you propose is far and far worse.

Those far right parties I have mentioned are social nationalist at hard. So on immigration, stop everyone at the border and throw everyone out which are deemed undesirable. On social issues, give the people more, because they are entitled to that. Look up the Robbers Cave Experiment, it might interest you if you like facts and research. It shows how easy it is to create a 'war' between groups of people in society.

OK - but if you have too much checks and balances, to the point that country's leadership isn't capable of taking actions that are urgently required? Even if we take today's European migrant crisis - don't you think that if individual governments and leaders had more authority they would have been able to deal with the situation more efficiently? But instead - they are tied up at national level and the EU level, and saving this EU is more priority to them than lives of their own citizens. Even if someone tries to voice an opinion that this isn't right, he is belong immediately labeled as a "far right populist" or a "dictator". Victor Orban is an example here. I clearly don't find this normal.

I believe that the strong and competent leaders should come out of other nation's institutions, and the political parties must aid voters in their election. Though, this is also prone to failure.

Too many checks and balances? Don't quite see what you are getting at here. If you want to live in a nation which upholds the rule of law, then that has to apply to everyone, including the government and its leaders or especially them. If the need arises to take immediate actions, then the same checks and balances are in place. The balance part shifts to more action, which is fine. And again, if you want to live your life as a free citizen, then that must apply to everyone, not just you and your peers.

Yes, the "European migrant crisis" could have been dealt with far more effectively, sure, but you have to remember, what is the price that you have to pay for that, nothing is free.

Even if someone tries to voice an opinion that this isn't right, he is belong immediately labeled as a "far right populist" or a "dictator". Victor Orban is an example here. I clearly don't find this normal.

Bullocks. You are trying to cramp as many frames in one sentence as possible?:

a. "opinion that this isn't right" --> what is that? The right opinion? b. " immediately labeled as a "far right populist" --> not true, at least not in The Netherlands. You have here a small group which basically sais: all welcome. You have a small group which sais: close the border and no one comes in. And by far the most people say: if it is truly a refugee, then we need to protect them, but it has to be done in a manageable fashion. The problem is of course that the extreme positions are getting the most attention in the media, that's how the media works, not enough room for nuances. c. "far right populist": if you subscribe to the point of view that only white Europeans should exist and that no one should be allowed to come in, yes you are rightfully labeled as a far-right populist, don't you think. d. don't think anyone has been called a "dictator" because of this, do you have an example. e.Viktor Orbán policies and views are far from the European ideal and for which it stance: democracy, rule of law etc. etc. And he has a 2/3 majority, so he can basically do what he wants, and that is reducing the "checks and balances" in the system. That's why he is leaning towards a "dictatorship" or autocracy and he is rightfully called that. He is the same type of leader as Putin, Erdogan etc. Democracy isn't a dictatorship of the majority but is a system of checks and balances. f. What Hungary did with its "wall", isn't a solution, it might be for Hungary, but it doesn't solve anything. If you truly want to solve it, you need to do it at an EU level, nowadays Italy and Greece get overwhelmed and the rest isn't bothered, and Hungary is an extreme example. You can't form a union, and only take from it, subsadies etc., but don't want to give anything and that is what the governments of Hungary and also Poland propose more or less.

I believe that the strong and competent leaders should come out of other nation's institutions, and the political parties must aid voters in their election

Strong leaders become corrupt leaders, shown over and over again. President Robert Mugabe is a prime example, first, he was a freedom fighter, but now he is a brutal dictator and so there are many many more examples out there. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Democracy, with its checks and ballances, aren't perfect, but it is the best system avalible to menkind.

So can we summarize and say the current state of affairs is that the average person in the mid east must choose between a strong dictator or an Islamist either of which will generate emigration to the West and some of these immigrants will become terrorists?